With E3 only a few weeks away, there is no reason to have doted on games during this event. So, the question becomes "Why did Microsoft decide to announce now instead of at E3?" and that is likely because of the content side of XBox One being a large focus. Maybe the "One" means "All in One" and there will be different SKUs for other models... like a games only version or a content only version. In any case, I was at least (if not actually more) interested in hearing the content side of things than the games... my wife and I use our current XBox for content far more than games... with a BR player and a strong content story, we likely won't be getting a PS4 or other console (for the past two generations at least, we've bought all of them... starting with the PS and going up... PS2, PS3, XBox, GameCube, Wii, XBox360) because the XBox One will support everything we need.... finally... in one console.

I disagree, with 95% or more of the games being multi-platform, you _know_ the games are going to be there. I agree with the way they did it, they showed off the console at the console release, and saved the games for E3

"We believe that if all you want is gaming, you'll still pick us, at the end of the day," Spencer dismissively told OXM. "The super core guys, they will buy everything. They will buy all devices, but most people really only do buy one device, and if you're going to think about what that one device is, we believe an all-in-one system that does the best games and TV and entertainment will be something that's really unique."

Microsoft has been aiming to own the consumer's living room for a long time now. It's been slow going, and not as cool as the wall sized touch screens they've demoed in the past, but seems like they aren't going to at least try to take advantage of the X-Box's penetration.

I mulled this problem over for a lot more time than it was worth and concluded that this must be Microsoft's way of getting the console announcement out of the way before E3 so they don't distract people from whatever they have to show off there. Though, why they waited until just weeks before E3 to talk about the console eludes me, unless it's just an attempt to stay in the headlines until E3 starts. Attention is attention, I guess, even if it's negative.

Microsoft does seem to be doing a lot of not-so-subtle crowdsourcing for some of its decisions this time around, which could account for their inability to answer questions with any consistency. But the reasoning there eludes me as well.

So, while I am excited about the hardware and video games taking a (hopefully) next-gen jump ahead, I just want to ask Microsoft one thing: WTF?

It's funny...a lot of gamers and game news outlets are attributing Sony's stock price increase last week to the Xbox One reveal/used games controversy, but it sure seems like Wall Street and business news oulets are attributing the jump to news breaking of Sony possibly spinning off its music and movie division, which happened before the XBox One event started. Check it out...

Video games are not their focus. They want to be the content ecosystem. It pays more than games.

That is great and all, but Microsoft isn't the only player vying for control of the living room, there's the aforementioned Boxee and Roku boxes, Google TV, and the increasing number of Smart TVs, in my house we already have two Smart TVs that can do Netflix and Hulu and all the stuff the Xbox 360 can do.

Except for one thing, the games, Microsoft should not forget that the Xbox is a game console first, that's why people get the Xbox 360 in the first place, for the games, Netflix and the like are just awesome bonuses to make the deal sweeter.

Hardcore gamers aren't worried about renting video games or borrowing them from friends. I am most certainly a hardcore gamer and, as such, I purchase all of my games so I can have them whenever I want and so my friends and I can play together. I also buy/play games on the PC and on Xbox 360 (sometimes even the same ones) and there is never a time where my house doesn't have the internet. I don't think you can even call yourself a hardcore gamer if you are just locked in a room playing offline single-player games. But really, if you can't afford to buy games you should spend less time playing and more time working.

It's almost like MS thought everyone would be so blown away by "TV TV TV TV Sports TV Sports TV Call of Duty" that they would completely forget about everything else, and so didn't bother to even prepare for those questions.

"No matter how much Microsoft is positioning the Xbox One as an all-in-one home entertainment center, it is still, at its heart, a game console"

Perhaps this is a too-easily accepted assumption?

Given the (calculated) emphasis on the "HOME TV ENTERTAINMENT! - TALK TO KINECT TO TURN IT ON!" angle -- which they absolutely must have thought about at length and planned out in tedious detail -- I'm not so sure that, as time goes on, gaming will occupy the primary focus of their efforts. especially if content providers start opening up the instant on-demand floodgates to premium content.

In the last iteration they got hurt because the PS3 had a blue-ray player, and the Xbox only had a DVD player. Blue-ray players were $300 at the time, and a PS3 was similarly priced. So some people chose a PS3 because of its non-gaming capabilities, knowing they wanted either a PS3 or an Xbox.

Hardcore gamers aren't worried about renting video games or borrowing them from friends. I am most certainly a hardcore gamer and, as such, I purchase all of my games so I can have them whenever I want and so my friends and I can play together. I also buy/play games on the PC and on Xbox 360 (sometimes even the same ones) and there is never a time where my house doesn't have the internet. I don't think you can even call yourself a hardcore gamer if you are just locked in a room playing offline single-player games. But really, if you can't afford to buy games you should spend less time playing and more time working.

I have well over a thousand games, spread across several generations of consoles and PC, with a couple of hundred finished. They're all single player. Are you saying I'm not a hardcore gamer?

Hardcore gamers aren't worried about renting video games or borrowing them from friends. I am most certainly a hardcore gamer and, as such, I purchase all of my games so I can have them whenever I want and so my friends and I can play together. I also buy/play games on the PC and on Xbox 360 (sometimes even the same ones) and there is never a time where my house doesn't have the internet. I don't think you can even call yourself a hardcore gamer if you are just locked in a room playing offline single-player games. But really, if you can't afford to buy games you should spend less time playing and more time working.

I have well over a thousand games, spread across several generations of consoles and PC, with a couple of hundred finished. They're all single player. Are you saying I'm not a hardcore gamer?

Yes since you have a couple of hundred unfinished ones. It sounds like you just buy games and don't play them.

I wonder if Arstechnica will send somebody to cover the games available for the Xbox One at E3...

Quote:

Definitely not gamers, as the lack of game demos and concrete answers to important game-related questions should make clear.

All gamers will be at E3 ...checking Xbox One & PS4...will you be there Ars ???

Of course we'll be there. And as I said at the conclusion of the piece.

"Microsoft's E3 showing will doubtlessly focus more on games, including a promised 15 exclusive titles. That event could do a lot to take attention away from the incidental issues that have dominated the conversation thus far."

Video games are not their focus. They want to be the content ecosystem. It pays more than games.

How does adding in other entertainment aspects detract from the games?

Because the money, effort, silicon, and CPU/GPU time spent on Kinect and other background process isn't being spent on making the console better for games. Which is why the PS4 will likely end up with 50% more GPU capability and 300% of the memory bandwidth for the same price as the XBO.

It's funny...a lot of gamers and game news outlets are attributing Sony's stock price increase last week to the Xbox One reveal/used games controversy, but it sure seems like Wall Street and business news oulets are attributing the jump to news breaking of Sony possibly spinning off its music and movie division, which happened before the XBox One event started. Check it out...

The failure seems to be confusion over what the product is. Is it an all-in-one entermainment box, or is it a gaming console with additional features tacked on that will make spending a couple hundred bucks more pallatable.

As an entertainment box with 'games' becoming a side business, this device would be crazy expensive when you consider alternatives. (yes I know a pricepoint is not known yet, but we can guess the range)

As a gaming console with features it may be worth it.

Promoting it as an all-in-one electronic to a gamer centric audience is bound to fail. Promoting the features of a gaming console without touching meaningfully on games is also bound to fail.

Xbox has to clarify their produce message asap or the xbox will have marketing issues like the WiiU does. (granted the WiiU has different marketing issues, they are still related to the marketing of the platform)

Video games are not their focus. They want to be the content ecosystem. It pays more than games.

Then they failed. My household should be high on the list of potential buyers. Disposable income. I play games occasionally and the boyfriend plays them religiously. We're cord cutters. We're geeks who love gadgets. I even have ethernet and an old laptop aka TV controller in the living room already. Give me a good reason to cough up a few hundred bucks on a new gadget and I probably will.

Yet, the Xbox fails to inspire or convince me I want one in my living room.

Video games are not their focus. They want to be the content ecosystem. It pays more than games.

How does adding in other entertainment aspects detract from the games?

Because the money, effort, silicon, and CPU/GPU time spent on Kinect and other background process isn't being spent on making the console better for games. Which is why the PS4 will likely end up with 50% more GPU capability and 300% or the memory bandwidth for the same price as the XBO.

Respectfully, if you think that memory bandwidth is a useful comparison between the PS4's GDDR5 architecture and the Xbox's DDR3 architecture, you're probably not competently equipped to comment on technical issues and should likely just sit things out.

Are there a lot of unanswered questions about the Xbox? Yes. Is everyone talking about the Xbox, also yes. I sincerely doubt it's accidental. Everyone seems to have this knee-jerk reaction that Microsoft is run by a bunch of monkeys anytime they do or say something that 100% of the population doesn't agree with.

I'm curious as hell about their used games policy, or their required internet policy. You can bet that I will be feverishly paying attention at E3 to see if they answer those questions. Again, I doubt it's any kind of accident.

As other commenters have said, I think it's also true that they focused on the +1 features because games are such an obvious capability for the device and will be covered ad nausium at E3.

Don't worry folks, Microsoft hasn't not been taken over by a pack of Sony-loving monkeys. There will be games-a-plenty and then there will be something else for you to complain about.

You know, reading this article, I realize that Microsoft's biggest problem in this is not the console or what it can do, but communication.

First, the release is less than a year away - how can you not what your policy on used games is? They likely do, but are afraid to go guns blazing. Here's the thing Microsoft, by being vague about it, you make consumers assume the worst. Tell us the real deal - at least then you can spin it.

They forget to tell people about the games that their new games console can play - I would think thats pretty important! Yeah, E3 is coming up, but first impressions count.

In this generation, I think Sony has already won. MS just seems disorganized and backwards. Sony learned all of the lessons it needed to from last generation, making the PS4 much easier to develop for, while MS, if anything, has gone backwards, giving out confusing messages.

Hardcore gamers aren't worried about renting video games or borrowing them from friends. I am most certainly a hardcore gamer and, as such, I purchase all of my games so I can have them whenever I want and so my friends and I can play together. I also buy/play games on the PC and on Xbox 360 (sometimes even the same ones) and there is never a time where my house doesn't have the internet. I don't think you can even call yourself a hardcore gamer if you are just locked in a room playing offline single-player games. But really, if you can't afford to buy games you should spend less time playing and more time working.

I have well over a thousand games, spread across several generations of consoles and PC, with a couple of hundred finished. They're all single player. Are you saying I'm not a hardcore gamer?

Yes since you have a couple of hundred unfinished ones. It sounds like you just buy games and don't play them.

And finished several hundred. I've been gaming longer than most people on the forums have been alive. I know the ebb and flow of how things change, and people with the One will lose their games.

its almost as if they are trying to fill in the niche that HTPCs left wide open when so many people lost interest in hooking their PCs up to their televisions.

They also seem to be using a similar cloaking technology as Sony, but i'm sure because of licensing restrictions they had to use it on things other than the exterior of the console, such as the interior of their console and other relevant information.

Video games are not their focus. They want to be the content ecosystem. It pays more than games.

How does adding in other entertainment aspects detract from the games?

Because the money, effort, silicon, and CPU/GPU time spent on Kinect and other background process isn't being spent on making the console better for games. Which is why the PS4 will likely end up with 50% more GPU capability and 300% or the memory bandwidth for the same price as the XBO.

Respectfully, if you think that memory bandwidth is a useful comparison between the PS4's GDDR5 architecture and the Xbox's DDR3 architecture, you're probably not competently equipped to comment on technical issues and should likely just sit things out.

There isn't any implied respect in that statement at all, so I'll not so respectfully ask you to kiss my ass.

With E3 only a few weeks away, there is no reason to have doted on games during this event. So, the question becomes "Why did Microsoft decide to announce now instead of at E3?" and that is likely because of the content side of XBox One being a large focus. Maybe the "One" means "All in One" and there will be different SKUs for other models... like a games only version or a content only version. In any case, I was at least (if not actually more) interested in hearing the content side of things than the games... my wife and I use our current XBox for content far more than games... with a BR player and a strong content story, we likely won't be getting a PS4 or other console (for the past two generations at least, we've bought all of them... starting with the PS and going up... PS2, PS3, XBox, GameCube, Wii, XBox360) because the XBox One will support everything we need.... finally... in one console.

It's a game console. It can do more but there's no special tricks to it - games are the heart and soul of the system. There are games Sony will get that are exclusive. There are games that Nintendo will get that are exclusive. Microsoft is a hard one in this category I'm afraid, it started nicer there but the past 2-3 years have really neutered it and the architecture change will cut this down lower. If you want the best all in one, know what you can get? A PC. That, at the least, will be backwards compatible. Being x86, you can also expect better porting capabilities. Hell, the basic living room focuses can be done with the Wii U and will still be there with the PS4.

Also a multi sku system is a terrible idea. KISS rule applies there, ask Sony for more details on that trainwreck of a year. PS3 was all kinds of a joke its first 2 years due to a mix of arrogance, price, and not knowing what the hell people want when they buy a game system. Microsoft looks like they want to one up 2006 Sony and more power to them. Maybe they'll get the hint then that they should have kept up with their own gameplan that worked.

"No matter how much Microsoft is positioning the Xbox One as an all-in-one home entertainment center, it is still, at its heart, a game console"

Perhaps this is a too-easily accepted assumption?

Given the (calculated) emphasis on the "HOME TV ENTERTAINMENT! - TALK TO KINECT TO TURN IT ON!" angle -- which they absolutely must have thought about at length and planned out in tedious detail -- I'm not so sure that, as time goes on, gaming will occupy the primary focus of their efforts. especially if content providers start opening up the instant on-demand floodgates to premium content.

Fair point. But if they are selling it primarily as an entertainment device and not a gaming console, than Kinect channel changing and some vague NFL partnership are not really enough to get people excited either, I'd argue...

"We believe that if all you want is gaming, you'll still pick us, at the end of the day," Spencer dismissively told OXM. "The super core guys, they will buy everything. They will buy all devices, but most people really only do buy one device, and if you're going to think about what that one device is, we believe an all-in-one system that does the best games and TV and entertainment will be something that's really unique."

They're in for a rude awakening.

on the contrary it could be a rude awakening for Sony. Xbox recognizes their audience as the COD/Madden crowd. What other activities do those crowds want? TV and Sports integration!MS has basically gone the "we want to own the US audience and forget about the foreign market" by their 24 hour check-in policy.The thing is that they can still do well with this. Nintendo has shown that capturing the casual market(which is what they are obviously going for) is incredibly lucrative. All they have to do is get an initial "foot hold" and the games will take care of themselves. Content providers go where they can hit the biggest amount of potential buyers at. MS sticks with easy cross platform with the PC and they know they will do fine(in the US)

Also the Kinect is the new "casual" draw. Tons of people I knew love it and making it even better is def a big deal.

Pretty much all of the reasonable commentary I've seen is that it is too early to have a strong opinion. It's just the echo chamber, fanboys, and click baiting news sites that have to have a "best thing ever" or "worst thing ever" response to either the product or the launch. Y'all are like the sports press that amounts the Super Bowl winner the day after the NFL draft.

Microsoft always has this impulse to try to "synergize" things. Here we see them trying to shoehorn things like Skype into their game console. Sure it's great or whatever, but the conversation at Microsoft always goes "where else can we stick something" instead of "what else does this product really need."

What's baffling is all this emphasis on media content. When has MS ever gotten media content right? Where are the deals people care about? Where's the media store? How is it all supposed to fit together?

It would be one thing if, as with Sony or Apple, the device was an extension of a healthy content organism. But here not only is MS over-emphasizing media over games, it's unclear what that actually means to the user who has no idea what they'd ever pay to watch from Microsoft.

Like a pizza joint selling a lunch buffet ...with nothing on the buffet. Can't I just order a pizza?

Video games are not their focus. They want to be the content ecosystem. It pays more than games.

How does adding in other entertainment aspects detract from the games?

Because the money, effort, silicon, and CPU/GPU time spent on Kinect and other background process isn't being spent on making the console better for games. Which is why the PS4 will likely end up with 50% more GPU capability and 300% or the memory bandwidth for the same price as the XBO.

Respectfully, if you think that memory bandwidth is a useful comparison between the PS4's GDDR5 architecture and the Xbox's DDR3 architecture, you're probably not competently equipped to comment on technical issues and should likely just sit things out.

There isn't any implied respect in that statement at all, so I'll not so respectfully ask you to kiss my ass.

You can do that, but you're still making useless comparisons. The GDDR5 in the PS4 is likely to end up being slower for the majority of code-related tasks than the DDR3 in the XBONE. Sony fucking themselves with stupid architectural decisions (and people who don't know any better defending them) isn't anything new, but it still shouldn't happen on Ars.

Video games are not their focus. They want to be the content ecosystem. It pays more than games.

How does adding in other entertainment aspects detract from the games?

Because the money, effort, silicon, and CPU/GPU time spent on Kinect and other background process isn't being spent on making the console better for games. Which is why the PS4 will likely end up with 50% more GPU capability and 300% or the memory bandwidth for the same price as the XBO.

Respectfully, if you think that memory bandwidth is a useful comparison between the PS4's GDDR5 architecture and the Xbox's DDR3 architecture, you're probably not competently equipped to comment on technical issues and should likely just sit things out.